UC-NRLF 


B  2  ae?  52^ 


% 

^^^ 


%  y-' 


^'^t^' 


k 


1 


HA- 


"^.P 


•4 


^'M 


Y  K  I 


^M>    t:i 


^■■-^r 


.y<: 


W 


A 


-'^. 


.o. 


<C,'i     "r,^    U. 


ligitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 
^     IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


rchive.org/details/dictatorshipofprOOkamerich 


The  Dictatorship 
of  the  Proletariat 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ 

By  L.    KAMENEFF 


Price  10  Cents 


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ 

PUBLISHED    BY    \'TUE    TOILER'' 
3207  CLARK  AVENUE,        CLEVELAND,  OHIO 


LOAN  STACK 


GWl 


The  Dictatorship  of  the  Proletariat 

By  L.  KAMENEFF 

Conservatism  in  ideology,  theories  based  on  principles, 
slowness  in  their  adaptation  to  rapidly-changing  life,  their 
constant  lagging  behind  the  constantly  changing  forms  of 
the  struggle — have  frequently^been  noted  by  Marxists.  In 
our  struggle  for  Communism,  \ve  constantly  meet  with 
these  facts,  we  constantly  haveto  remark  how  great  is 
the  power  of  the  old  ideology  even  over  the  best  men  of 
the  present  Labor  movement — in  so  far  as  these  men 
have  grown  up  in  the  atmosphere  of  pre-war  Europe. 

This  mental  conservatism  is  most  strikingly  observed 
in  their  approach  to  the  question  of  dictatorship.  Six 
years  of  war  and  revolution  (1914-1920)  it  would  seem 
should  have  elucidated  this  finally,  from  all  points  of  view, 
by  practice,  by  facts  out  of  the  everyday  life  of  the  masses ; 
and  yet,  even  among  the  comrades  adhering  to  the  Third 
International,  we  are  often  confronted  with  the  question: 

"What  is  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat? Cannot 

the  Labor  movement  attain  its  object  without  a  dictatorship? 

Why    is   dictatorship    inevitable?"      I    heard   these 

questions  not  only  from  the  members  of  the  British  Trade 
IJnion  delegation,  but  even  from  some  of  the  members  of 
the  delegation  of   Italian  Socialists. 

When  one  hears  such  questions  one  thinks  involuntarily 
that  the  persons  uttering  them  must  have  slept  through  a 
whole  historical  period,  and,  first  of  all,  through  the  world- 
war  of  1914-18.  For  these  years  constituted  a  model  epoch 
of  dictatorship,  and  the  method  of  carrying  on  the  war 
were  models  of  the  application  of  dictatorial  methods  of 
ruling  a  country. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  government  of  a  coun- 
try, the  imperialist  war  consisted  in  the  assembling  and 
placing  under  a  single  command  of  millions  of  men,  in 
providing  their  equipment  and  transport,  and  compelling 
these  many  millions  of  men  to  carry  out  certain  tasks. 
These   tasks   were    foreign   to    these    millions,    and    were 

228 


accompanied  for  each  of  them,  separately,  and  for  all 
together,  with  incredible  sufferings,  privations,  and  the 
risk  of  death.  How  did  the  governments  of  Europe,  Amer- 
ica and  Asia  accomplish  the  task?  By  what  methods  did 
they  guarantee  the  assembling,  equipment,  transport  and 
command  of  these  millions?  By  what  methods  did  they 
secure  the  adaptation  of  the  whole  administrative,  economic 
and  social  life  of  the  state  to  carry  out  the  tasks  set  by  the 
government?  Was  this  achieved  by  means  of  democracy? 
By  the  means  of  parliamentariasm  ?  By  means  of  the  real- 
ization of  the  sovereignty  of  the  "people"? 

The  sovereignty  of  the  people,  democracy,  the  State,  par- 
liamentarism, even  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  hypo- 
critical bourgeois  defenders,  cannot  but  mean  the  discussion 
and  decision,  if  only  of  the  most  important  questions,  of  the 
state  and  social  life  by  the  citizens  themselves,  "free"  and 
"equal"  in  the  eyes  of  the  law. 

However,  at  present,  even  the  most  unenlightened  peasant, 
in  the  most  backward  of  all  covmtries  drawn  into  the  war, 
knows  that  the  government  of  his  country  in  1914-1918  was, 
as  a  whole  and  in  every  detail,  a  clear,  simple,  elementary 
refutation  of  these  regulations  of  bourgeois  democracy. 
Democracy,  parliaments,  elections,  freedom  of  the  press, 
remained — in  so  far  as  they  did  remain — a  mere  screen ;  in 
reality  all  the  countries  drawn  into  the  war — the  whole 
world— were  governed  by  the  methods  of  a  dictatorship, 
which  utilized,  when  it  happened  to  be  convenient  and  prof- 
itable, elections,  parliaments  and  the  press. 

One  must  be  a  blind  fool  or  a  conscious  deceiver  of 
the  masses,  not  to  see,  or  to  conceal,  this  fundamental  fact ; 
at  the  most  critical  period  of  their  history,  at  the  moment 
of  their  struggle  for  existence,  the  bourgeois  States  of 
Europe,  Asia  and  America  defended  themselves  not  by 
means  of  democracy  and  parliamentarism,  but  by  openly 
passing  over  to  the  methods  of  dictatorship. 

It  was  the  dictatorship  of  the  general  staffs,  of  the  offi- 
cers' corps,  and  of  large  industry,  to  whom  belonged,  not 
only  actually,  but  also  formally,  all  power  both  in  the  army 
and  in  the  country ;  who  commanded,  not  only  lives,  but  also 
the  property  of  the  whole  country  and  of  every  citizen,  not 
only  living  at  the  time  but  yet  to  be  born  (the  military  debts 
of  Messrs.  Romanoflf,  HohenzoUern,  Clemenceau  and  Lloyd 


George  will  cover  the  lives  and  work  of  future  generations). 

During  several  years,  before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  human 
race,  a  picture  of  the  practice  of  dictatorship  is  unrolled — 
a  dictatorship  ruling  over  the  whole  world,  determining 
everything,  regulating  everything,  penetrating  everything, 
and  confirming  its  existence  by  20,000,000  corpses  on  the 
fields  of  Europe  and  Asia.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  to 
the  question,  "What  is  dictatorship  ?"  the  Communists 
should  answer:  "Open  your  eyes,  and  you  will  see  before 
you  a  splendidly  elaborated  system  of  bourgeois  dictatorship, 
which  has  achieved  its  object;  for  it  has  given  that  con- 
centration of  power  into  the  hands  of  a  small  group  of 
world  imperialists  which  allowed  them  to  conduct  their  zvar 
and  attain  their  peace  (of  \'ersailles).  Do  not  pretend 
that  dictatorship — as  a  system  of  government,  as  a  form 
of  power — can  frighten  anyone  except  the  old  women  of 
bourgeois  pacifism.  The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  sup- 
presses, not  'equality,'  'liberty,'  and  'democracy,'  but  only 
the  bourgeois  dictatorship,  which  in  1914-18  showed  itself 
to  be  the  most  bloody,  most  tyrannical,  most  pitiless,  cynical 
and  hypocritical  of  all  forms  of  power  that  ever  existed." 

The  theorist  of  Communism,  beginning  with  Karl  Marx, 
proved,  however,  a  long  while  ago,  that  the  dictatorship  of 
the  proletariat  does  not  consist  in  replacing  the  bourgeoisie 
by  the  proletariat  at  the  same  governmental  machine.  The 
task  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  is  to  break  up  the 
machinery  of  government  created  by  the  bourgeoisie,  and 
re  replace  it  by  a  new  one,  created  on  a  diflFerent  basis  and 
reposing  on  a  new  co-relation  of  the  classes. 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  appears  in  the  pro- 
grams of  the  Socialist  parties,  not  later  than  the  seventies  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  However,  during  the  whole  period 
of  the  Second  International,  it  did  not  once,  on  any  occa- 
sion, become  the  practical  duty  of  the  day,  and  attracted 
the  attention  neither  of  the  practical  workers  nor  of  the 
theoreticians  of  the  Labor  movement;  and  only  when,  in 
1914-18,  through  the  veil  of  democracy,  parliamentarism, 
and  political  liberty,  the  unmistakable  features  of  the  bour- 
geois dictatorship  became  clearly  discernible,  did  the  idea  of 
the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  become  a  real  force.  It 
became  a  force  because,  as  Marx  says,  it  took  possession 
of  the  proletarian  masses. 


In  the  1903  program  of  the  Russian  Social  Democratic 
Party — a  program  which  aspired  to  be  only  a  precise  and 
improved  statement  of  the  programs  of  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic parties  already  in  existence,  and  which  at  the  time, 
in  1903,  united  both  the  Bolsheviks  and  the  Mensheviks — 
the  idea  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  was  expressed 
as  follows : 

"The  necessary  condition  for  the  social  revolution  is  the 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  that  is  the  conquest  by  the 
proletariat  of  a  political  power  that  will  allow  it  to  crush 
all  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  exploiters."  This  definition 
is  embodied  without  alteration  in  the  program  of  the  Rus- 
sian Communist  Party. 

The  authors  of  the  1903  program  could  not  foresee  the 
actual  circumstances  in  which  the  proletariat  of  any  country 
would  have  to  take  the  power  into  its  hands.  They  cer- 
tainly did  not  attempt  at  the  time  to  define  in  what  measure 
the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  would  be  connected  with 
the  formation  of  a  proletarian  (Red)  army,  with  the  prac- 
tice of  Terror,  with  the  limitation  of  political  liberties. 
They  had  to  underline,  and  they  did  underline,  not  these 
changeable  elements — varying  in  the  various  countries — of 
the  proletarian  dictatorship,  but  its  fundamental  and  un- 
changing feature,  inevitable  for  any  country  and  any  his- 
torical conditions  under  which  the  proletariat  seizes  power. 

The  proletariat  not  only  seizes  power ;  in  grasping  it,  the 
proletariat  gives  to  it  such  a  character,  such  a  degree  of  con- 
centration, energy,  determination,  absoluteness,  infinitude, 
as  according  to  the  words  of  the  program,  "will  allow  it 
to  crush  all  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  exploiters."  That 
is  the  fundamental  feature  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  pro- 
letariat. 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  is  therefore  an  organ- 
ization of  the  State  and  a  form  of  administration  of  State 
affairs  which,  in  the  transitional  stage  from  capitalism  to 
Communism,  will  allow  the  proletariat,  as  the  ruling  class, 
to  crush  all  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  exploiters  to  the 
work  of  Socialist  reconstruction. 

It  is  thus  clear  that  the  question  itself  of  the  necessity, 
the  inevitability  of  a  proletarian  dictatorship  for  every  cap- 
italist country  is  connected  with  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  resistance  of  the  exploiters  to  their  expropriation  by 


Socialist  society^HDr,  more  precisely,  by  society  marching 
towards  Socialism — is  inevitable. 

In  the  same  way,  the  question  regarding  the  degree  of 
severity  of  the  dictatorship,  the  extent  and  conditions  of  the 
limitation  of  the  political  rights  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  lim- 
itation of  political  liberty  in  general,  the  application  of 
terrorist  methods,  etc.,  is  indissolubly  linked  with  the  ques- 
tion of  the  degree,  forms,  stubbornness  and  organization 
of  resistance  by  the  exploiters. 

Anyone  who  expresses  a  doubt  as  to  the  inevitability  of 
the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  as  a  necessary  stage 
towards  Socialist  society,  thereby  expresses  a  doubt  of  the 
bourgeoisie  showing  any  resistance  to  the  proletariat  at  the 
decisive  hour  of  the  expropriation  of  the  exploiters. 

Propaganda  based  on  this  may  be  dictated  either  by  in- 
dividual stupidity,  or  the  interest  of  a  group  of  persons  in 
concealing  from  the  proletariat  the  circumstances  of  the 
forthcoming  struggle,  and  in  preventing  it  from  preparing 
for  the  same. 

When  persons,  calling  themselves  Socialists,  declare  that 
the  course  of  dictatorship,  admissible  and  explicable  for 
Russia,  is  in  no  wise  obligatory  or  inevitable  for  any  other 
capitalist  country,  they  proclaim  a  thing  directly  contrary  to 
truth.  The  actual  Russian  bourgeoisie  always  was,  and 
up  to  the  October  Revolution  remained,  the  least  organized, 
the  least  conscious  in  the  sense  of  class,  the  least  united 
of  all  bourgeois  classes  in  the  countries  of  the  old  capitalist 
order.  The  Russian  peasantry  had  not  time  enough  to  de- 
velop that  class  of  strong  and  politically-united  peasants, 
which  is  the  basis  of  a  series  of  bourgeois  parties  in  the 
West.  The  Russian  middle  class  of  the  towns,  crushed  and 
politically  unenlightened,  never  represented  anything  like 
such  groups  of  the  population  as,  in  the  West,  create  and 
support  the  parties  of  "Christian  Socialism"  and  anti-Semi- 
tism. 

The  first  thunder  claps  of  the  proletarian  revolution  broke 
over  this  politically  backward,  inactive  and  unorganized 
class.  "The  resistance  of  the  exploiters"  to  the  blows  of  the 
Russian  proletariat  must  therefore  be  considered  as  com- 
paratively weak — weak,  naturally  only  in  comparison  with 
the  activity  which  the  bourgeoisie  of  any  other  European 
country  will  be  able  to  develop.    The  actively  resisting  ele- 


8 

ment,  which  dragged  on  the  struggle  for  three  years,  were 
not  the  unorganized  forces  of  the  Russian  bourgeoisie,  but, 
first  of  all,  foreign  interventionists,  and  then  the  bourgeoisie 
of  the  border  countries  (Finland,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Uk- 
raine), which,  playing  upon  the  century-old  hatred  against 
Tsarist  Russia,  managed  to  unite  under  the  flag  of  nation- 
alism certain  organized  groups  for  resistance  against  the 
Russian  proletariat.  If  it  were  not  for  these  external  cir- 
cumstances, the  resistance  of  the  Russian  bourgeoisie  would 
have  been  broken,  not  in  three  years,  but  in  three  months, 
and  the  proletarian  apparatus  of  State  power  would  nat- 
urally have  directed  all  its  energy  towards  other  ends. 

In  conformity  with  the  nature  of  the  resistance  which  wa? 
to  be  expected  from  the  Russian  propertied  classes  and 
their  organizations,  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  in 
Russia  had  its  period  of  "rosy  illusions"  and  "sentimental 
youth." 

There  can  be  nothing  more  mistaken  than  to  assume  that 
the  Russian  proletariat,  or  even  its  leader,  the  Communist 
Party,  came  into  power  with  recipes,  prepared  in  advance, 
of  practical  measures  for  the  realization  of  the  dictatorship. 
Only  "Socialist"  ignoramuses,  or  charlatans,  could  suggest 
that  the  Russian  Communists  came  into  power  with  a  pre- 
pared plan  for  a  standing  army.  Extraordinary  Commissions, 
and  limitations  of  political  liberty,  to  which  the  Russian 
proletariat  was  obliged  to  recur  for  self-defense  after  bitter 
experience.  The  cause  of  the  proletariat  was  saved,  because 
it  soon  profited  by  its  acquired  experience  and,  with  unfail- 
ing energy,  applied  these  methods  of  struggle  when  it  be- 
came convinced  of  their  inevitability. 

The  transference  of  power  to  the  Soviets,  and  the  for- 
mation of  the  new  Workers'  and  Peasants'  Government 
took  place  on  November  7th,  1917.  The  discomfiture  and 
disorganization  of  the  bourgeoisie  was  so  great  that  it  was 
unable  to  muster  any  serious  forces  against  the  workmen. 
The  resistance  of  the  government  of  Kerensky  was  broken 
after  a  few  days.  The  elections  to  the  Constituent  Assem- 
bly still  continued.  All  the  political  parties — up  to  Miliu- 
kofT's  party— continued  to  exist  openly.  All  the  bourgeois 
newspaper  continued  to  circulate.  Capital  punishment  was 
abolished.  The  army  was  being  demobilized.  In  the  hands 
of   the  government  there  were  no  other  forces  than  the 


volunteer  detachment  of  armed  workmen.  The  Ministers 
of  Kerensky's  government  arrested,  during  the  first  days, 
(the  leaders  of  the  Socialist  Revolutionary  Party,  Avk- 
sentieff,  Gotz,  Zenzinoff,  the  Generals  Boldareff,  Krasnoff 
and  others — later  on,  all  of  them,  leaders  of  the  armed 
struggle  against  the  Soviet  power  and  members  of  the  rebel 
governments  of  Siberia,  the  Don  and  the  South)  were  set 
free.  Generals  Denikin,  Markoff,  Erdeli  and  others  re- 
mained in  the  hands  of  the  Soviet  power  up  to  November 
20th  and  left  its  limits  alive. 

Yes,  that  was  the  period  of  "rosy  illusions."  It  continued 
for  a  few  months. 

The  conditions  began  to  change  by  April-May,  1918.  In 
April,  1918,  the  decree  regarding  the  formation  of  a  stand- 
ing Red  Army  was  published.  Only  in  April  the  Extra- 
ordinary Commissions  acquired  the  right  to  execute  rob- 
bers caught  in  the  net  and  officers  going  off  to  Korniloff,  ac- 
cording to  his  secret  mobilization.  Only  on  June  18th  did 
the  Revolutionary  Court  pass  its  first  sentence  of  death  on 
the  Admiral  commanding  the  Baltic  Fleet.  Only  in  May 
were  measures  taken  to  stop  the  publication  of  the  bour- 
geois papers  (at  the  moment  of  this  suppression  there  were 
thirty  papers  against  three  of  the  Soviets  in  Moscow  alone). 
Only  in  June,  1918,  were  the  Mensheviks  driven  out  of  the 
Soviets. 

Thus  over  six  months  (November,  1917 — April-May, 
1918)  passed  from  the  moment  of  the  formation  of  the 
Soviet  power  to  the  practical  application  by  the  proletariat 
of  any  harsh  dictatorial  measures.  The  increased  severity 
in  the  dictatorship  was  called  forth  by  a  series  of  very  ele- 
mentary facts.  In  April,  the  government  of  Skoropadsky 
was  organized  in  Kieff ;  in  May  took  place  the  rising  of  the 
Czecho-Slovaks,  their  seizure  of  the  railway  system  and  the 
formation  of  the  Socialist-Revoluntionary  government  in  the 
East;  in  May,  too,  the  Cossack  counter-revolution  on  the 
Don — the  Russian  Vendee — acquired  increased  importance 
under  the  command  of  General  Krasnoff. 

Parallel  with  this,  all  the  attention  and  energy  of  the 
working  class  was  concentrated  on  the  tasks  of  the  war,  and 
the  Soviet  state  was  transformed  into  a  camp  of  armed  pro- 
letarians. 


10 

Such  was  the  experience  of  the  Russian  proletariat.  We 
have  now  before  us  the  experience  of  the  class  struggle  for 
proletarian  power  in  Finland,  Hungary  and  Germany.  The 
fundamental  difference  between  the  experience  of  Hungary, 
Finland  and  Germany  and  that  of  Russia  consists  in  the 
fact  that  the  bourgeoisie  of  those  countries  proved,  as  was 
to  be  expected,  to  be  much  more  organized,  united  and 
capable  of  fighting  than  the  Russian  bourgeoisie.  Its  period 
of  confusion  was  much  shorter;  it  organized  a  counter-at- 
tack against  the  proletariat  much  more  rapidly  and  ener- 
getically ;  and  by  that  very  fact  shortened  the  period  of  illu- 
sions of  the  proletariat  itself  as  to  the  nature  of  its  dictator- 
ship. 

The  experience  of  the  workers  of  Russia,  Finland,  Hun- 
gary and  Germany  allows  us  to  establish  an  empiric  law  of 
the  development  of  proletarian  dictatorship,  which  may  be 
expressed  approximately  in  the  following  words.  The  fact 
of  the  conquest  of  the  central  political  power  by  the  prole- 
tariat in  no  wise  completes  the  struggle  for  power,  but  only 
marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  more'  determined  period 
of  warfare  between  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  proletariat. 

After  the  first  blow  of  the  proletarian  revolution  and  the 
seizure  of  the  central  apparatus  of  power  by  the  proletariat, 
the  bourgeoisie  inevitably  needs  a  certain  time  for  mobiliza- 
tion of  its  forces,  the  bringing  up  of  reserves  and  their  or- 
ganization. Its  passing  to  a  counter  attack  opens  up  an 
epoch  of  undisguised  warfare,  and  armed  clash  of  the  forces 
of  both  sides. 

It  is  just  during  this  period  that  the  rule  of  the  proletariat 
acquires  the  harsh  features  of  a  dictatorship:  a  Red  Army, 
a  terrorist  suppression  of  the  exploiters  and  their  allies,  the 
limitation  of  political  liberty,  becomes  inevitable  if  the  pro- 
letariat does  not  wish  to  give  up  without  a  fight  the  power 
it  has  won. 

The  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  is  consequently  a  form 
of  government  of  the  state  which  is  most  adapted  to  the 
carrying  on  of  a  war  with  the  bourgeoisie,  and  to  guarantee 
most  rapidly  the  victory  of  the  proletariat  in  such  war. 

Are  there  any  grounds  for  presuming  that  such  a  war  in 
Europe  will  be  carried  on  in  less  acute  forms?  That  the 
European  bourgeoisie  will  submit  with  a  lighter  heart  to 
the  expropriation  of  its  riches  by  the  proletariat?  Can  any 


11 

reasonable  person  build  his  tactics  on  the  supposition  that 
the  European  bourgeoisie  will  not  show  all  the  resistance 
of  which  it  is  capable  against  the  proletariat  which  has 
seized  power  ?  Can  one  presume  that,  entering  into  the  fight 
against  the  proletariat  in  power,  the  European  bourgeoisie 
will  prove  to  be  less  armed,  less  capable  of  fighting,  less 
united  and  less  prudent  than  the  bourgeoisie  of  Russia, 
Finland  or  Hungary?  Can  one  imagine  that  it  will  stop  at 
any  means,  beginning  with  a  far-reaching  union  with  the 
betrayers  of  Socialism  from  the  camp  of  the  Second  Inter- 
national and  ending  with  the  bombardment  of  the  work- 
men's quarters  and  the  application  of  the  latest  technical 
methods  for  the  suffocation  of  the  enemy  in  war? 

What  under  these  conditions  can  be  the  meaning  of  a 
doubt  in  the  inevitability  of  the  methods  of  proletarian  dic- 
tatorship, or  a  refusal  to  work,  day  in  and  day  out,  for  the 
preparation  of  the  proletariat  to  utilize  all  the  methods  of 
dictatorship  in  the  coming  struggle? 

To  move  towards  a  seizure  of  power,  not  hoping  to  hold 
it,  and  not  preparing  the  conditions  for  holding  it,  is  simply 
f oolhardiness ;  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  the  proletariat 
conquering  power,  and  to  doubt  the  necessity  of  a  dictator- 
ship of  the  proletariat,  to  refuse  to  instruct  the  workers  in 
this  direction — means  consciously  to  prepare  the  betrayal  of 
the  cause  of  Socialism.  Whoever  does  not  recognize  the 
necessity  for  fhe  severest  proletarian  dictatorship  during  the 
transitional  period  from  capitalism  to  Socialism;  does  not 
prepare  the  necessary  conditions  for  the  proletariat,  on 
acquiring  the  central  apparatus  of  power,  at  once  directing 
it  to  the  suppression  of  the  resistance  of  the  exploiters; 
whoever  does  not  explain  to  the  proletariat,  as  a  necessary 
condition  here  and  now,  of  its  victory,  the  inevitability  of  an 
armed  struggle  and  harsh  measures  against  treason  and  hesi- 
tation, and  does  not  arm  the  proletariat  with  the  suitable 
weapons — that  person  is  preparing  the  ruin  of  the  prole- 
tariat and  the  victory  of  the  bourgeoisie. 

But  if  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat  is  an  organiza- 
tion of  power,  which  is  best  adapted  to  the  carrying  on  of 
the  war  against  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  suppression  of  its 
resistance,  then  we  have  an  answer  also  to  the  question 
which  is  generally  put  to  the  Communists  by  the  syndicalists 
of  various  schools  of  thought.    The  latter  while  admitting 


12 

the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  cannot  divest  themselves 
of  their  old  prejudices  against  a  political  party  of  the  pro- 
letariat. The  question,  consequently,  is :  what  organization 
is  capable  of  achieving  a  solution  of  the  problems  of  dic- 
tatorship ? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  at  the  moment  of  a  decisive 
class  war,  the  power  of  command  and  compulsion  must 
lie  in  the  hands  of  a  definite  organization,  capable  of  bearing 
the  responsibility  for  each  step  it  takes  and  of  guaranteeing 
the  logical  sequence  of  these  steps. 

The  army  of  the  proletariat,  moving  in  battle  order, 
must  have  its  general  staff.  When  leading  its  regiments 
to  the  attack,  that  general  staff  must  be  capable  of  "sur- 
veying the  sum  total  of  the  international,  political  and 
economic  conditions  of  the  struggle.  It  must  possess  equal 
authority  over  all  kinds  of  arms  at  the  disposition  of  the 
working  class.  It  must  be  in  a  position  to  carry  out  its 
decisions  through  the  trade  unions,  and  the  workmen's  co- 
operatives, through  the  factory  committees,  and  through 
the  leagues  of  young  workers,  by  means  of  written  propa- 
ganda, and  through  the  fighting  militia  of  armed  workers. 

At  the  moment  when  the  old  power  is  overthrown  and 
the  apparatus  of  government  is  seized  by  the  revolting  pro- 
letariat, that  general  staff  has  new  tasks  to  perform.  The 
victory  of  the  proletariat  signifies  the  disorganization  of 
the  old  social  system.  The  formation  of  a  new  army,  the 
feeding  of  the  country,  the  building  up  of  industry  on  new 
principles,  the  organization  of  law  courts,  the  establishment 
of  relations  with  the  peasants,  the  diplomatic  relations  with 
other  countries — all  these  matters  become  at  once  the  im- 
mediate tasks  of  the  general  staff  of  the  victorious  prole- 
tarian army.  Any  delay  in  the  accomplishment  of  one  of 
these  tasks,  or  any  hesitation  in  the  decision,  is  capable  of 
bringing  greatest  harm  to  the  further  victorious  develop- 
ment of  the  proletarian  revolution. 

Consequently,  this  general  staff  must  be  an  organized 
responsible,  and  centralized  institution,  prepared  to  deal 
with,  and  decide  all  political,  economic,  social  and  diplo- 
matic problems.  An  organization  which  would  satisfy  all 
these  conditions  and  solve  all  the  problems  incumbent  upon 
it  may  be  called,  of  course,  by  any  name  whatsoever ;  but  in 
reality — and  if  we  do  not  play  with  words — such  an  organ- 


13 

ization  can  only  be  the  political  party  of  the  proletariat; 
i.  e.,  an  organization  of  the  most  advanced,  revolutionary 
elements  of  the  proletariat,  united  by  their  common  politi- 
cal program  and  an  iron  discipline. 

Such  an  organization  cannot  be  formed  in  a  day  or  even 
a  week ;  it  is  the  result  of  a  prolonged  process  of  assembling 
and  selecting  experienced  leaders,  who  have  proved,  by  their 
daily  work,  to  be  capable  of  estimating  rightly  each  phase 
of  the  labor  struggle,  and  the  interests  of  each  separate 
group  of  the  working  class,  from  the  higher  point  of  view 
of  the  general  interests  of  the  entire  working  class  as  a 
whole. 

The  greatest  misfortune  which  could  befall  the  pro- 
letarian army  after  seizing  the  strongholds  of  capitalism, 
would  be  if  the  apparatus  of  leadership  proved  to  be  in 
the  hands  of  men,  groups,  or  organizations  whose  previous 
work  had  been  carried  out  only  in  the  sphere  of  the  labor 
movement. 

The  suppression  of  the  resistance  of  the  exploiters — 
which  is  the  fundamental  task  of  the  dictatorship — is  not 
only  a  military,  or  only  a  political,  or  only  an  economic  task; 
it  is  all  of  them — military,  political,  economic.  The  re- 
sistance of  the  exploiters  acquires  only  its  most  acute  form 
during  an  armed  conflict;  but  the  rich  peasantry,  which 
will  not  give  the  bread  for  the  famishing  population;  the 
engineers  who  sabotage  industry ;  and  the  bankers  who  bring 
confusion  into  the  mutual  account  of  the  industrial  enter- 
prises by  concealing  their  books — are  not  less  important 
factors  in  the  resistance  of  the  bourgeoisie.  The  suppres- 
sion of  all  these  various  forms  of  resistance  can  be  as  little 
the  work  of  an  organization  created  in  the  narrow  sphere 
of  the  trade  union  movement,  as,  say,  of  a  workers'  co-op- 
erative organization.  It  can  be  successfully  achieved  only  by 
a  general  organization  of  all  the  workers,  in  the  shape  of 
their  Soviets,  in  which  are  represented  all  the  forms  of  the 
labor  movement,  and  which  are  under  the  guidance  of  a  pol- 
tical  party,  concentrating  in  itself  the  whole  experience  of 
the  previous  struggle  of  the  working  class. 

In  the  epoch  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  the 
Communist  Party  is  still  more  necessary  for  the  working 
class  than  in  any  other.  It  constitutes  an  essential  condition 
for  victory.    A  refusal  to  work  for  its  creation  and  strength- 


14 

ening  means  a  renunciation  of  the  efficient  carrying  on  of 
the  class  war,  i.  e.,  a  renunciation  of  dictatorship,  of  a 
condition  of  the  victory  of  Socialism,  and  may  engender, 
although  unconsciously,  the  most  cruel  betrayal  of  the  work- 
ing class  cause,  by  depriving  the  proletariat,  at  the  most 
critical  moment,  of  its  most  important  weapon.  Anyone  who 
doubts  the  inevitability  of  the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat, 
as  a  necessary  stage  of  its  victory  over  the  bourgeoisie, 
facilitates  the  conditions  for  the  victory  of  the  latter;  any- 
one who  doubts  or  renounces  the  political  party  of  the 
proletariat,  is  helping  to  weaken  and  disorganize  the  work- 
ing class. 

June,  1920. 


READ 

"The  Toiler" 

Devoted  to  the  Workers'  Struggles 

for  Power  in  the  Shops 

and  Factories. 

News  of  the  World-wide  Proletar- 
ian war  against  Capital. 

The  facts  about  strikes  of  Militant 
Workers. 

Special   articles   on  new  develop- 
ments of  Labor  Unionism. 

For  All  Power  to  the  Workers. 

For  Industrial  Unionism. 

The  best  Cartoons. 

$2.00  a  year. 

"The  Toiler" 

3207  Clark  Ave.         Cleveland,  O. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2.month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  callmg 

1-ySotS  mS  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

Renells'and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 
prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

«»^rt988 


>  v-^:^- 


